Bari, Italy, Head-on Train Crash


https://twitter.com/Agenzia_Ansa/status/752816893904482305/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Accidents will happen, but after nearly two hundred years of experience of rail safety, head-on crashes on single track should never be one of them. A large number of people have been killed or injured (at least 12 killed and many more injured) by one such, in the 'Heel of Italy, near Bari. (See map) It happened in good weather at 11:30 local time (09:30 GMT) in the southern region of Apulia. The line is managed by Ferrotramviaria. 

AP now reports: "President of the southern Italian province where train crash occurred says death toll is now 20."

AP also reports Ferrotramviaria director general Massimo Nitti saying,  "The details of what went wrong are still to be determined,"  adding that, "It is clear one of the trains wasn't supposed to be there at the same time as the other.'"!

On its Facebook page it has this announcement in translation: 
"Notice:
Movement of trains stopped in sudden corato - Andria, established replacement bus service
The movement of trains is currently stopped in sudden corato - Andria, in the meantime, there has been a replacement bus service in from corato to Andria and Andria in corato, are possible disturbances in the movement."
One Facebook member added this comment:
 Carmela Mastrangelo avete postato la notizia come se si trattasse del furto dei cavi della scorsa notte.... !!!!! decine di famiglie distrutte da una tragedia apocalittica!!! Riposate in pace ...anime di Dio ...

Have you posted the news as if it were the theft of cables of last night.... !!!!! Dozens of families torn apart by a tragedy apocalyptic!!! Rest in peace... Souls of God..

Rather strangely, it appears only the previous week, Bari was host to an international conference to discuss transportation issues. One question arises if any of the delegates were on the doomed trains, or had previously travelled on them? The following is an extract of the formal announcement on the same Facebook page:

"It will be ‪#‎bari‬, one of the most dynamic business and the south of Italy, to host the international conference on ‪#‎ASSTRA‬ TARIFF SYSTEM OF‪#‎TPL‬ (local public transport) organized in collaboration with Asstra‪#‎Puglia‬ and the ‪#‎uitp‬, the International Association of public transport.
Appointment on Thursday 7 and Friday 8 July at the mercure hotel villa romanazzi carducci, starting from 9,30. provided for the participation of operators from all the continents.
The first day is focused on the international comparison with a rich program of speeches; the second day, a study on the evolution of the asstra tariffs in Italy and a search of the isfort that addresses the issue of fare from a socio-Economic Angle, will the dozer Political debate of the round table with which will end the conference.
The 7th of July is scheduled the simultaneous translation of the speeches from English to Italian and vice versa. The day July 8, the work will take place only in Italian language."

https://www.rt.com/news/350764-trains-collide-italy-casualties/

'Russia Today' states: "Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has called the devastating train crash “a moment of tears” and pledged not to rest until the cause of the crash is determined. Renzi had been on a visit to the Museum of Science and Technology in Milan, where he addressed the families of the victims of the rail disaster, adding that he would return to Rome immediately.

"Addressed the families of the victims" raises the question, if accurate, how they came to be there at an obviously pre-arranged event in the north of Italy and many miles distant from, and immediately after, the accident?


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=map+of+italy&rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&espv=2&biw=1024&bih=713&tbm=isch&imgil=FFmluGpx9-gteM%253A%253BSNF17XufWusdSM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.mapsofworld.com%25252Fitaly%25252Fregions.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=FFmluGpx9-gteM%253A%252CSNF17XufWusdSM%252C_&usg=__WvIbsQQMpw7tvXO9pOZlGB5EwB0%3D&ved=0ahUKEwja-KWP7u3NAhVkBsAKHZ_NDtMQyjcIKw&ei=o9mEV5qbKOSMgAafm7uYDQ#imgrc=FFmluGpx9-gteM%3A


It rather reminds me of another that took place recently at Bad Aibling in Germany, that raised predictable questions.  I am not sure have been adequately answered. I discussed it here:

http://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/bad-vibes-from-bad-aibling-cnn-report.html

In this age of advanced technology, what is a simple and basic precaution, that you never allow two trains to travel in opposite directions on a single track, appears to be becoming increasingly difficult to achieve.

The BBC report here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36774059


The questions to be asked are:

1. How was it possible two trains could be on a single track at the same time, going in opposite directions?
2. What precautions and safety measures were in place to prevent this happening and why didn't they work?
3. The facts speak for themselves that they could not have been sufficient, so what additional measures are nececessary to positively prevent it happening again?
4. Where else in Italy (and the rest of Europe) are similar events possible by virtue of inadequate safety measures?
5. Were there any suspicious circumstances or evidence of intentional neglect or reckless behaviour?
6. Were, on what appears to be relatively straight and unobstructed track, attempts made to warn the drivers or the drivers themselves to avoid the crash?
7. Was the crash in any way connected to the international conference only four days previous or issues of finance addressed at it, or of wider international relationships?
8. How if reliable, was the Prime Minister able in Milan to "address the families of the victims" immediately after the event - unless this is misleading statement down to translation, and the families were not physically present?
9. Had the recent events at Bad Aibling been studied and any lessons learned and applied to this particular section of track?

UPDATE 13.7.2016

Death-toll now 27. "Antiquated alert system. Human error."

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36781217


"The investigation into Tuesday's head-on train crash in southern Italy that killed 27 people is focusing on the antiquated alert system on the line.

They are looking into one of the black boxes recovered at the scene of the collision, on a remote single-track line north of the city of Bari.

The system relied on telephone calls and "human error" remains the main line of inquiry, reports say.

Dozens of rescue workers are still searching the wreckage.

The inquiry is focusing on the lack of automatic signalling system on a small part of the Italian railway network.

The stretch of track between the towns of Andria and Corato in the southern region of Apulia where the crash happened did not have an automatic alert or brake system.

It relies on station masters phoning one another to advise of trains running on the single track.

"Surely one of the two trains shouldn't have been there," railway police Cdr Giancarlo Conticchio is quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

"And surely there was an error. We need to determine the cause of the error," Mr Conticchio said."


Some interesting international timings here:

One week before:

From: https://www.rt.com/news/350797-italian-intelligence-syria-assad/#.V4X6yM4KUaM.facebook 
Published time: 12 Jul, 2016 14:43

Italian intelligence chief visits Syria, discusses counterterrorism cooperation with Assad – report

"Italy’s intelligence chief has reportedly visited Syria, where he met with President Bashar Assad and discussed counter-terrorism cooperation. Damascus is allegedly offering data on European jihadists in exchange for normalization of diplomatic relations.


Alberto Manenti’s visit to Syria went unannounced last week, just as the visit of his Syrian counterpart, Deeb Zeitoun, to Rome had a week before, Dubai newspaper Gulf News reported.

This behind-the-scenes exchange of visits of intelligence chiefs became the first official contact between high-level Syrian and EU officials since 2011."

From: http: //www.express.co.uk/news/world/687476/Egypt-Italy-thousands-migrants-EU-murdered-student-Giulio-Regeni

PUBLISHED: 03:57, Fri, Jul 8, 2016 | UPDATED: 04:24, Fri, Jul 8, 2016

Egypt threatens to let hundreds of thousands of migrants into EU as row with Italy erupts

"More than 70,000 migrants have travelled from Egypt and Libya to Italy so far this year, but now the North African country is threatening to do nothing to stem the flow – prompting fears countless more could enter Europe in the coming months.

The flare-up in relations comes after Italian politicians voted to stop supplying Egypt with spare parts for F-16 fighter jets after the North African nation failed to investigate the death of an Italian student in Cairo."

Human Problems; Human Priorities?

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/560/media/images/78429000/jpg/_78429609_somalia_camp_g.jpg


by TheodoreVTuesday, July 10 2012, 1:59PM
“The issue of human population on the earth is a massive and complicated one that is susceptible to no easy answers. More people have been born in the last hundred years than have lived in the hundred thousand years prior to it! 

Intelligent humans uniquely and paradoxically have had a far more damaging effect on their environment than any other species, and ironically the more developed their culture, the greater the impact. 

We tend to focus on "Black Africa", and indeed this is where both population growth and poverty is greatest, but it is the developed world in the west, and latterly in the east, that has the greatest impact on the environment. Humans have an insatiable appetite to consume raw materials in bettering their lot, meaning the average American consumes hundreds of times that of a poor African. 

The issue is not just basic numbers but also how human conditions can be improved for the poor, without replicating the problems of the rich. 

However it should be remembered that a hundred years ago, a common Western family size might be ten children. It is economic development and changed perspectives that has brought this down to two. This is a glimmer of hope for Africa, South America, the Far East and the world.”

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18zxyss42hm5pjpg/original.jpg

Update.

Nothing much has changed since I wrote the above four years ago on my Facebook page. What if instead of devoting all our energies to weaponry and war we were to devote them to living sustainably and healthily, addressing hunger, illness, disease and unsupportable birth rates? To protecting vulnerable eco-systems and the species that depend on them? 

If we are, human attitudes and behaviour have to change radically, particularly as regards travel. Human intelligence and intellect needs to be redirected to the overwhelming priority of maintenance and survival of the whole ecosphere. The deeply embedded human urges to domination, aquisition, differentiation and violence need to be somehow brought under control for the greater survival imperative.

As always the question remains: "How?"

CHILCOT

See: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/246416/the-report-of-the-iraq-inquiry_executive-summary.pdf


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130314210440-09-iraq-war-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg



"The world is better off without Saddam." George Bush.


Chilcot has taken a long time in coming. Fifteen years after the invasion of Iraq; seven years after it was set up! Nevertheless its publication and findings are to be welcomed as a vindication for those that battled for it and agreed to set it up; for the principles of an open and democratic society; to honour those who lost their lives or have been permanently scarred by its consequences, both home and abroad. It hopefully, puts finally to rest the flimsy excuses, prevarications and justifications to which we have been subjected over the years.

It has now been established after an exhaustive, judicial and independent enquiry that many of the serious allegations levelled against Prime Minister Blair and his government have been fully justified, not only on the basis of hindsight but of contemporary knowledge and information available to them at the time. As to the events of 9/11 and the whole military adventure, a ominous and secretive hand has been suggested, of which perhaps many leading spokespersons and politicians were unaware. It is possible that they, like us were duped, by fairly small, distinct and powerful criminal group!

In all these departments however, the victory might be regarded a Pyrrhic. It does nothing to change the disgraceful circumstances of the past; restore the dead to their loved ones or cure those injured  or diseased by weaponry; heal the hatred and psychological damage inflicted to particularly young minds; restore the physical and social infrastructure destroyed; reduce current violence and bloodshed or stem the tide of refugees; guarantee the prevention of future similar illegal acts; or bring those that made them to account.

Ever alert to the importance of timings and singularity, I cannot escape from noticing the publication comes just a few weeks or days after the nationalistic celebration of the Monarch's 90th birthday and the centenary of the Somme; days after the EU Referendum expected to reaffirm membership; three days after American Independence anniversary; in the middle of European football competition in which Wales happens to be doing very well, whilst England fall victim to Iceland and drop out in disgrace. All of which provide fertile distraction material both in Europe and the USA.

In a further strange quirk, the Summary Report consists of precisely 911 paragraphs. Given the importance of the events of 9/11 to the rationale and justification of subsequent acts, including the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq, and the fact that later revelations have proved it was indeed a massive fraud imposed on the world by a cohort of radical extremists far removed from those accused, the numbering of the paragraphs must at least be ironic.

Indeed it could be said that the report sagely both begins and ends with reference or allusion to this criminal, but never properly investigated event.

Paragraph 10 states: "After the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001 and the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in November, the US Administration turned its attention to regime change in Iraq as part of the second phase of what it called the Global War on Terror."

This is expanded in later paragraphs as follows:

"46. The attacks on the US on 11 September 2001 changed perceptions about the severity and likelihood of the threat from international terrorism. They showed that attacks intended to cause large‑scale civilian casualties could be mounted anywhere in the world.

"47. In response to that perception of a greater threat, governments felt a responsibility to act to anticipate and reduce risks before they turned into a threat. That was described to the Inquiry by a number of witnesses as a change to the “calculus of risk” after 9/11.

"48. In the wake of the attacks, Mr Blair declared that the UK would stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US to defeat and eradicate international terrorism.

"49. The JIC assessed on 18 September that the attacks on the US had “set a new benchmark for terrorist atrocity”, and that terrorists seeking comparable impact might try to use chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear devices. Only Islamic extremists such as those who shared Osama Bin Laden’s agenda had the motivation to pursue attacks with the deliberate aim of causing maximum casualties. 

"50. Throughout the autumn of 2001, Mr Blair took an active and leading role in building a coalition to act against that threat, including military action against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. He also emphasised the potential risk of terrorists acquiring and using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, and the dangers of inaction."

Mr Blair himself in his response to Chilcot refers to the impact it had on him as follows:

"My premiership changed completely on 11th September 2001. 9/11 was the worst terrorist atrocity in history. Over 3000 people died that day in America, including many British people, making it the worst ever loss of life of our own country’s citizens from any single terror attack. In fact, 9/11 was not the first attack. Prior to September 2001, 23 countries had suffered terrorist attacks of this nature. In 2002, 20 different nations lost people to terrorism." 

He does not of course allude to the fact that, in the light of later revelations, he must have been conned by this, as well as us!

It appears that Chilcot declines to opine on the basic allegation that the 9/11 attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden located in an Afghanistan cave on the other side of the world, using nineteen terrorists mainly from Saudi Arabia, who could barely fly a Cessna. This of course was not in its terms of reference, and anyway had to be beyond its scope, but it is hard to divorce it from our thoughts, if for no other reason than it appeared to be so influential in persuading Prime Minister Blair to head for war in spite of the fact as Chilcot makes clear.

Even by November 2001 the Intelligence position was that there was no connection between the events of 9/11 and Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Paragraph 51 states:

"51. In November 2001, the JIC assessed that Iraq had played no role in the 9/11 attacks on the US and that practical co‑operation between Iraq and Al Qaida was “unlikely”. There was no “credible evidence of covert transfers of WMD‑related technology and expertise to terrorist groups”."

However we know that the psychological connection was pushed hard by both Bush and Blair, reinforced by the latter's heavy reliance on the "forty-five minutes" threat, and had its desired propaganda effect on the respective populations. Thus we now know we went to war not just on one grievous lie but two.

So what has Chilcot finally 'put to bed' so to speak? His conclusions can be summarised from the millions of words 'buried' in the text, and thereby very difficult to extract. Also it tends to camouflage criticism in 'lessons to be learned'. Even so its conclusions are damning.

In the press conference to launch the document on 6.7.2016 Sir John Chilcot made the following observations (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyAWtkw3EZg) . He said the Inquiry was set up to answer two questions:

a) "Whether it was right and necessary to invade Iraq in March 2003"; and

b) "Whether the UK could and should have been better prepared for what followed"

He makes the following six (damning) conclusions:

1) "The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted

2) Military action at that time was not a last resort

3) The judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, were presented with a certainty that was not justified

4) Despite explicit warnings the consequences of the invasion were underestimated

5) The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate

6) The government failed to achieve its stated objectives

In other words and in layman's language we might paraphrase by saying the government's military action constituted an illegal act under international law as it was not excused by aggression or the threat of it; the information available to it was unreliable and indeed 'sexed up' - effectively lied to - to persuade Parliament and the people to go to war; that the troops dispatched were insufficiently prepared from a planning and equipment point of view, as a result of which many died unnecessarily; that no thought was given to what would happen subsequently, significantly contributing to the death, destruction and chaos that followed, which is still continuing.

The whole policy it appears was first based upon the travesty and lies of 9/11; compounded by the then Prime Minister's egotistical obsession with "standing shoulder to shoulder" with the United States; prepared in pursuing this objective to ignore legal advice, domestic public opinion, Cabinet discussion and approval; telling Parliament and the country of threats that he knew to be untrue; going to war in a blasé fashion, with inadequate preparation or post invasion plan, thereby putting British and untold Iraqi civilian lives at stake.

It is hard to envisage any more serious charges that could be laid against a living politician short of torturing and killing Iraqi civilians with his own hands in cold blood! (Of course the British Government can hardly claim to be innocent of the latter either in the whole disgraceful business of American 'rendition' either)

Now we wait to see what the practical consequences of this leviathan Inquiry are. Already the debate and attention has moved from the conclusions of the report, buried as they are in the voluminous text like lurking cats in the undergrowth, to the personality and defences of Tony Blair who says for the decision,  "I accept responsibility in full – without exception or excuse." (His full and some might think persuasive repost and defence, can be found here: (http://blair.3cdn.net/7c545e7dd16bfda1c8_aqm6ii5qy.pdf )

In the criminal law, those that plan to kill without lawful excuse, for example in self defence, may be found guilty of murder. The invasion of Iraq could not be accomplished without killing both combatants and innocent civilians - that much was clear. In law it is immaterial if the planner engages others to do the dirty deed or if it is carried out in a foreign territory.

Alternatively those that kill without intent, merely out of reckless behaviour, can be arraigned for the lesser charge of manslaughter. Even if the Police and DPP did not see fit to pursue a case, in theory Mr Blair could be subject to European Arrest Warrant by any of the twenty eight countries in the EU, to which Britain is obliged to accede!

Alternatively Britain is signed up, unlike America which has excluded itself from its jurisdiction, the International Criminal Court (ICC), by virtue of the 'Rome Statute' has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is hard to imagine a crime more egregious than the invasion of Iraq and its consequences for the people there.

But we should not hold our breath. We know that prominent politicians dwell in an enchanted land where normal rules do not apply. State officers can usually find reasons not to pursue charges against them. European States are unlikely to shake the EU boat even further especially when implicated in the whole murky business. The European Arrest Warrant is surely only for low social status petty criminals? The ICC is surely only for those African and European despots that have defied and have incurred the displeasure of Western government not for the leaders of those governments themselves? To claim you are a "democratic government" intent on "justice and freedom" appear to be the unimeachable 'get out of jail free card', whatever the extent or nature of barbaric act undertaken.

Prior to the Iraq invasion hundreds of thousands of Britons took to the streets to protest their opposition. They were ignored and since then the government has engaged in similar exercises. We shall have to see whether all the effort and money poured into Chilcot, has any lasting or profound effect on future policy and action or if anyone is actually held to account for the decisions taken and their lasting results.


POSTSCRIPT



Following from: https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/uk-us-and-allies-complicit-in-funding-arming-creating-isil-takfiri-militants-in-iraq-syria/

"Operation Mass Appeal

"Operation Mass Appeal was an operation set up by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) in the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was a campaign aimed at planting stories in the media about Iraq‘s alleged weapons of mass destruction.[1] The existence of the operation was exposed in December 2003, although officials denied that the operation was deliberately disseminating misinformation. The MI6 operation secretly incorporated the United Nations Special Commission investigating Iraq’s alleged stockpiles of “Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s)” into its propaganda efforts by recruiting UN weapons inspector and former MI6 collaborator Scott Ritter to provide copies of UN documents and reports on their findings to MI6.

"The former UN arms inspector, Scott Ritter, revealed in his book, Iraq Confidential, the existence of an MI6-run psychological warfare effort, known as Operation Mass Appeal.[2] According to Ritter: “Mass Appeal served as a focal point for passing MI6 intelligence on Iraq to the media, both in the UK and around the world. The goal was to help shape public opinion about Iraq and the threat posed by WMD.” MI6 propaganda specialists, at the time, claimed they could spread the misinformation through “editors and writers who work with us from time to time”.

"Ritter, in an interview with Amy Goodman of the US news website Democracy Now!, described how he, as an arms inspector for the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction – and UNSCOM itself – became deeply involved in MI6’s “Operation Mass Appeal”:

“I ran intelligence operations for the United Nations in regards to the disarmament of Iraq. That was my job. Part of this job in 1997 and 1998 took on a propaganda aspect, given the fact that we had launched a series of controversial and confrontational inspections in Iraq, which although successful from a disarmament standpoint in exposing aspects of the Iraqi account which were not accurate, were causing problems for the United Nations in the Security Council […] We made a decision. We, being Richard Butler, the Executive Chairman who ran UNSCOM, and his senior staff members, of which I was one, that we needed to clean up our public image, and we did a number of things […] [In December of 1997] I was approached by the British intelligence service, which I had, again, a long relationship with, of an official nature, to see if there was any information in the archives of UNSCOM that could be handed to the British, so that they could in turn work it over, determine its veracity, and then seek to plant it in media outlets around the world, in an effort to try to shape the public opinion of those countries, and then indirectly, through, for instance, a report showing up in the Polish press, shape public opinion in Great Britain and the United States.

“I went to Richard Butler with the request from the British. He said that he supported this, and we initiated a cooperation that was very short-lived. The first reports were passed to the British sometime in February of 1998. There was a detailed planning meeting in June of 1998, and I resigned in August of 1998. […] This is an operation — Operation Mass Appeal, that had been going on prior to UNSCOM being asked to be the source of particular data, and it’s an operation that continued after my resignation.”[3]" 

END QUOTE.

And still it continues.... "The world better without Saddam"? I wonder if average Iraqis would agree with that assessment?

The Origins and Results of Anti-Semitism


https://metrobibleblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/isaac_blessing_jacob_gioachino_assereto_1640.jpg



Strangely, as a person born into a Christian family, in an English rural setting in the 1950's, I was brought up with Arabs and Jews. 

Of course, by and large, they were not 'real' Jews and Arabs. They were characters from the Old and New testament, in some ways far more familiar than the people in the next village. Characters, whose lives and deeds were referred to so repeatedly and in such detail, that in the minds eye they became as real and close as family members and friends. Indeed it would be no lie to say that I knew more of the life Esau and Jacob and their father Isaac, a family that supposedly lived about four thousand years ago, than I did the life experiences and biography of my own grandfather! And it still remains the case.

I, like perhaps the majority of Englishmen before me, was raised in an ill-defined, but nonetheless deeply influential Christian environment with deep roots in Judeao-Christian tradition. Christian teaching of course grew out of, but distinguished itself from the Jewish faith that preceded it. The characters were Jewish and Arab to a man (and woman) but undoubtedly they were English in our imagination. The words we read on the page were English. The words of those that retold the stories from which were drawn the moral and spiritual lessons were in English. Had we heard them in their native Arabic and Hebrew or even Latin, they would have appeared from an alien planet and been unintelligible and their meaning would have been completely lost to us.

The religious buildings in which we heard these stories and the ritual context in which they were relayed was distinctly European and local. The churches dated from roughly the fourteenth century. The theology was Protestant Reformation with modern twists on a Calvinist interpretation of the deity of Christ, the nature of (sinful) man and salvation through the ancient Jewish belief in sacrificial redemption, except now the animal was replaced by the Divine man, Jesus. Even the images, insofar they were provided, and by and large the visual representation of Christ was frowned upon - again an ancient Jewish and Muslim concept - were European and light skinned in nature.

Repetition and exposition on a regular basis had its psychological and emotional effects. I do not believe they were all bad. It was done in good faith by our elders, for whom the esoteric spiritual world was believed in absolutely and influenced action. These were good people largely free of the many ills that beset people today or even then. It meant that many on grounds of conscience refused to enlist or fight in the Second World War and were reviled for it.

There was an embedded ambivalence, even dissonance, in all this subconscious cultural conditioning, both as regards the narrative itself and the wider contemporary world view. The Old Testament stories were from the Jewish viewpoint and empathetic to it. Nevertheless within this group engaged in a marathon task to enter the 'promised land' with God on their side, there were the 'goodies' and 'badies'. The 'chosen race' was continually being urged by prophets to mend its ways. At the same time this Semitic group was engaged in a brutal and callous campaign against other groups, urged on by a vengeful deity.

Then there is the antipathy between the notion of 'God's chosen people', with the Jews of the New Testament rejecting and finally calling for the execution of the 'Son of God'. Subsequently however it is those same Jewish individuals, principally by tradition St. Peter and 'St. Paul', convinced by Christ's teaching, that bring evolved Jewish theology first to the wider Middle East and later to Rome. However it was not for another three hundred years before Constantine, under the influence of his secretly Christian mother, converted and the Roman Empire with him.

Both he and his son 'Constantinus' or 'Constantine II' carried on an anti-pagan and anti-Jewish policy as violent as the one previously pursued against Christians. The inherent contradiction between claimed beliefs and actions is obvious. We should not feel too superior. Christian countries today are still exhibiting the same hypocrisy albeit wrapped in secular objectives.

So as a child of 20th Century in England, subject by the age of ten to perhaps 16,000 hours of religious and moral teaching along these lines and personally converted to it by the age of ten, besides all the wider embedded Christian culture and symbolism from Sovereign down, what were the remnant attitudes to those of different faiths, and particularly Jews and Muslims? Did we view these two groups in similar light? Were they equally regarded as friend or foe, familiar or alien?

Why I wonder should I be asking myself these questions now? I do so because I believe it is important that we question our native conditioning and the way it impacts on our world view, particularly as it relates to policy in the Middle East today. Nowhere could it be of greater significance than the opinions held by the majority of the 'Christian Right' in the United States as the foremost aggressive military power in the world although it is a significant factor here in Britain also.

The support for a Zionist State of Israel and its actions is in large measure found in this group. It is why Presidential candidates go to extraordinary lengths to woo both the Jewish and evangelical cohorts with incredibly little introspection or critical objectivity. The Christian, Jewish and Muslim exhortation to living peaceably and 'loving your neighbour', are apparently jettisoned without the slightest reservation or hesitation in the face of jingoistic, unsubstantiated claimed threats and meaningless words such as 'freedom'. Recent western action should lead all religious people towards a profound sense of guilt and repentance if their beliefs mean anything.

A consideration of how religious views affect policy and action is not esoteric and irrelevant. It is pertinent and essential. There is a tendency in society to close the discussion down, particularly on the oft quoted grounds of 'anti-semitism'. Nothing could be more damaging to the welfare of people around the world. Religious belief must be subject to critical analysis, as must the actions that flow from the intrinsic beliefs, whilst respecting the peaceful belief systems of others.

We must learn to distinguish between beliefs and their outcomes. If the results are violent, abusive or unjust, they must be condemned and resisted. Nor should we be naive as to the lengths influential groups and governments go to enlist the support of religious belief and the people that hold them to pursue their policies, or to subtly try to influence opinions one way or another.

There is no doubt that Jewish Zionists have become past masters in the art of persuasion to the detriment of their neighbours and claimed enemies. Indeed have used every device at their disposal, including the so-called 'false flag' to influence public opinion in particularly America and Europe. The events of 9/11 and their subsequent treatment have proved that. It is summed up by Mossad's motto from Proverbs 24:6 "By way of deception, thou shalt do war." The issue has raised its ugly head yet again in respect of the campaign to dislodge Jeremy Corbyn from his position as Leader of the Labour Party and of 'Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition'.

There is little doubt that what we might call the Jewish Lobby is enormously and disproportionately influential in economic and political matters, particularly the USA and parts of Europe including Britain. The oil-rich Arab states may wield an influence born of wealth and holders of debt but amazingly this accords with Jewish interests and objectives to a greater extent than the interests of its fellow Muslims in lands either occupied or torn asunder by conflict. We witness Saudi Arabia and Israel acting as military partners and deep dishonesty over support and control of so-called ISIS.

The fact that Jews by virtue of religion or descent are found at all levels of British society, in commerce, entertainment, banking, the professions and law does not mean they exercise a questionable influence, but neither should the possibility be ignored or underestimated. Any grouping that considers itself distinct, with common beliefs and loyalties - whether it be 'old school', professions, union membership, religious or political groups, criminal gangs, secret societies, the mafia - none can regarded as totally benign or free of dangers to the commonwealth. By the same token, the huge positive contribution to British society must be acknowledged as indicated by the Wikepedia list here: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t229415/

However what we seldom hear in the press and media is the prominent role of Jews in the history of particularly American crime which probably continues (Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crime; http://listverse.com/2012/05/25/top-10-people-who-give-judaism-a-bad-name/) Concerns over how Jewish criminals have escaped justice in France by using the Israeli 'escape route' (rather conveniently and surprisingly France has no extradition treaty with Israel) is provided by the 'Chikli case' and others. (See: http://www.timesofisrael.com/are-french-jewish-criminals-using-israel-as-a-get-out-of-jail-card/) The number of Jews in prison has increased by 82 per cent since 2002, and now stands at 327 people registered as Jewish in English and Welsh establishments. (See: http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/146678/huge-leap-number-jews-behind-bars) However in fairness I should point out that this figure appears to be unrepresentative of Jewish people at large.  The most recent census in 2011 showed that Jews make up 0.47 per cent of people in England and Wales, while Jewish inmates constitute 0.38 per cent of the prison population. (See: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/10/8/on-jews-and-criminality)

Of course no less that the President of British Jews narrowly missed out on a trial for serious criminal charges owing to his mental state when they were finally brought. Another notable Jewish politician, Leon Brittan, has never been fully exonerated regarding allegations of corruption. In both cases the way the matters were treated by establishment and press gave rise to suspicion of protection and collusion by largely Jewish controlled media empire. Sir Philip Nigel Ross Green another prominent Jewish businessman has recently appeared before a Parliamentary Select Committee in connection with the collapse of BHS with a half a billion pound deficit in its worker's pension pot. The disproportionate influence by and sympathy for Israel and Jewish groups can hardly be denied, with 80% of Conservative 'Friends of Israel' (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Friends_of_Israel and http://www.dailystormer.com/how-jewish-criminals-control-the-british-parliament/ How can this be regarded as other than worrying?

So we come to the recent saga of Jeremy Corbyn and his battle to retain his leadership of the Labour Party and Opposition. He has had unprecedented support amongst ordinary Labour Party members. He was unexpected to win the contest, yet as he toured the country, everywhere he went he was met by overflowing halls and general acclaim. Membership of the party soared and by virtue of a recent change in the election rules, he won the election by a wide margin. However from the beginning, about 80% of MP's were unimpressed, and are now in open revolt with most of his 'shadow cabinet' having resigned, including his mentor's son Hilary Benn being summarily sacked in a midnight call. (See: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/hilary-benn-revolt-jeremy-corbyn)

Now it would be a brave man to claim this was all an Israeli or Jewish plot but it is strangely synchronous that there has been a high-profile allegation of 'anti-semitism' in the Labour Party followed by further charges against Corbyn himself. We have noticed before how often coterminous timing features in events of importance for Israel. If not actually planned we would have to regard them as evidence of supernatural intervention. (See for starters: http://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/lies-and-fear-surrounding-911.html)

The row kicked off on the 28th April, 2016 with a comment by Corbyn ally, ex Mayor of London Ken Livingstone:  

"It’s [ie, Shah’s comment] completely over the top but it’s not antisemitism. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

This caused outrage as any comparison or affinity between Israel and the Third Reich is hotly contested for obvious reasons by both Jews and Israel. The fact that Livingstone was later largely vindicated in his claim by historians admitting there had been such contact, and him strenuously denying the charge of anti-semitism, claiming he distinguished between Israel, Jews and Zionism, he was promptly expelled from the party and an investigation under the chairman of 

Today (4.7.2016) Jeremy Corbyn has condemned Ken Livingstone’s controversial claims that Adolf Hitler initially backed Zionism. He said, “No I think we have to condemn the way he made the remarks and the remarks themselves and the equation of Hitler and Zionism at the same time.” Referring to a remark he had made at an earlier press conference (Jews were “no more responsible for the actions of Israel” than Muslims were for the “various self-styled Islamic states or organisations”) that had also cause caused furore, he said,  “It would have been better, with hindsight – and many things are much better with hindsight, as every one of us around this table is well aware – if I had said Islamic countries rather than states.”

Jewish News Online reports that "at last week's press conference, Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth walked out after an activist accused her of “working hand in glove” with The Daily Telegraph. Mr Corbyn said he “was not aware she had left at that stage” and added that the comments from Marc Wadsworth which prompted her walkout were “inappropriate and wrong”. The Labour leader also expressed regret about previously calling Hezbollah and Hamas as his “friends”."(http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/jeremy-corbyn-condemns-ken-livingstones-claim-that-hitler-backed-zionism/)

The prominence given to the emotional reaction by Ruth Smeeth, a Jewish MP (see: ) is itself somewhat suspicious. I take that we should always be wary of tears in politics. I would contend they are almost always contrived for a purpose, the most recent example by Angela Eagle immediately prior to launching herself for Party leadership contention. Anyway further intrigue is added by a claim by Mark Steele on Twitter, that her husband works for the semi-secretive right wing "British-American Project" (See: http://www.newstatesman.com/node/149147) It almost goes without saying that "Right Wing" in America is synonymous with Zionism.

George Robertson, Chris Smith, Mo Mowlam, Peter Mandelson and Liz Symons.  Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, Matthew Taylor of the Institute for Public Policy Research and Geoff Mulgan of the No 10 Policy Unit and Jeremy Paxman and James Naughtie of the BBC, Trevor Phillips, and the Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore are all listed as past 'graduates'.

At the launch of the Shami Chakrabarti, inquiry into anti-semitism, that effectively cleared it of the charge, Corbyn said: 'Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu Government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.'

This was immediately interpreted by Jewish religious sources, in similar vein to those by Livingstone, as equating Israel to ISIS, which of course is not what he said. Both the existing and former Chief Rabbi condemned the remark. 

Chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis told the Times the comments were offensive 'however they were intended'.

And former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks was reported as saying: "Jeremy Corbyn’s comparison of the state of Israel to Isis is demonising of the highest order, an outrage and unacceptable. That this occurred at the launch of the report into the Labour Party’s recent troubles with antisemitism shows how deep the sickness is in parts of the left of British politics today." (See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3667717/Don-t-talk-Hitler-Corbyn-publishes-anti-Semitism-inquiry-tells-Labour-members-resist-Nazi-metaphors-compares-Israeli-government-ISIS.html)

Unfortunately for these protesters, and despite Corbyn rejecting the interpretation of his remarks, as I have previously alluded, there is significant substance to the claim that Israel is deeply embroiled in the whole ISIS business. Some informed sources even claim that the letters stand for "IsraeliSecretIntelligenceService"!

Apart from the circumstantial evidence of not a single ISIS offensive action against Israel despite it surely being the chief enemy of Islam; of Netanyahu's statement that he would, "prefer ISIS to Iran" (See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/01/19/israeli-defense-minister-if-i-had-to-choose-between-iran-and-isis-id-choose-isis/) or that Israel is documented supporting ISIS alligned Al Nusra Front (See: http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-syrian-rebels-keeping-druze-safe-in-exchange-for-israeli-aid/) and that NATO member financed ISIS by buying its oil (See: https://www.rt.com/news/326567-is-export-oil-turkey/); it is only one of the many jigsaw pieces that suggests ISIS is the creation of an alliance of western and middle eastern countries of which Israel is a part and that the deception imposed on the British people and other nations, knocks the Suez fiasco into a cocked hat.

After fifteen years, the Chilcot Inquiry (See: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/) belatedly offers some hope of a glimmer of light into the circumstances of the illegal Iraq invasion (not to mention the unjustified invasion of Afghanistan!) Before the ink is dry, there should be another into the whole ISIS fabrication and Israel's part in it.

So although we should all refrain from unjustified or ill-tempered abuse of "Semites" (which of course alludes to all Arabs in that region, and ironically excludes many non-semitic Jews and residents of Israel) the pejorative term "anti-semitic" should equally never be applied casually or as often happens a blanket slur just to prevent the facts being discussed or the truth being allowed to escape. Only when we escape our cultural conditioning and that of the media, enabling our reason to take command of our emotions, will the truth emerge and some degree of justice for those currently suffering be afforded.

Crocodile shoes, not crocodile tears?

The unpublicised failures of the Home Office under Theresa May.


http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/03/03/22/Theresa-May-Getty.jpg



From:  https://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/the-article-our-corrupt-home-secretary-theresa-may-tried-to-censor/

Theresa May Is A Great Self-Promoter, But A Terrible Home Secretary

In the run-up to the 2015 election, one of the handicaps David Cameron had to finesse was the fact that net migration to the UK was three times as high as he had promised it would be. Remarkably, none of the opprobrium this failure provoked brought forth the name of Theresa May, the cabinet minister actually entrusted with bringing migration down. Then, as now, it was as if the icy Home Secretary had a dark magic that warded off all critical scrutiny.

The fact that her lead role in this fiasco went unnoticed and unmentioned likely reflects Mrs May’s brilliant, all-consuming efforts to burnish her image with a view to become prime minister.

After all, Mrs May’s tenure as Home Secretary has been little better than disastrous – a succession of derelictions that has left Britain’s borders and coastline at least as insecure as they were in 2010, and which mean that British governments still rely on guesswork to estimate how many people enter and leave the country.

People find this hard to credit because she exudes determination and strength. Compared to many of her bland, flabby cabinet colleagues, she has real gravitas. And few who follow British politics would deny that she is a deadly political infighter. Indeed Theresa May is to Westminster what Cersei Lannister is to Westeros in Game of Thrones: no one who challenges her survives undamaged, while the welfare of the realm is of secondary concern.

Take the demoralised, underfunded UK Border Force. As the public discovered after a people-smugglers’ vessel ran aground in May, it has has only three cutters protecting 7,700 miles of coastline. Italy by contrast has 600 boats patrolling its 4722 miles.

Considering the impression Mrs May gives of being serious about security, it’s all the more astonishing that she has also allowed the UK’s small airfields to go unpatrolled – despite the vastly increased terrorist threat of the last few years, the onset of the migration crisis, and the emergence of smuggling networks that traffic people, drugs and arms.

Then there is the failure to establish exit checks at all the country’s airports and ports. These were supposed to be in place by March 2015.

Unfortunately the Border Force isn’t the only organisation under Mrs May’s control that is manifestly unfit for purpose. Recent years have seen a cavalcade of Home Office decisions about visas and deportations that suggest a department with a bizarre sense of the national interest.

The most infamous was the refusal of visas to Afghan interpreters who served with the British forces in Afghanistan – as Lord Guthrie said, a national shame.

Mrs May has kept so quiet about this and other scandals – such as the collapse of the eBorders IT system, at cost of almost a billion pounds – that you might imagine someone else was in charge the Home Office.

[It’s not just a matter of the odd error. Yvette Cooper pointed out in 2013 that despite Coalition rhetoric, the number of people refused entry to the UK had dropped by 50 per cent, the backlog of finding failed asylum seekers had gone up and the number of illegal immigrants deported had gone down.]

The reputation for effectiveness that Mrs May nevertheless enjoys derives from a single, endlessly cited event: the occasion in 2014 when she delivered some harsh truths to a conference of the Police Federation.

Unfortunately this was an isolated incident that, given the lack of any subsequent (or previous) effort at police reform, seems to have been intended mainly for public consumption.

In general Mrs May has avoided taking on the most serious institutional problems that afflict British policing. These include a disturbing willingness by some forces to let public relations concerns determine policing priorities, widespread overreliance on CCTV, the widespread propensity to massage crime numbers, the extreme risk aversion manifested during the London riots, and the preference for diverting police resources to patrol social media rather than the country’s streets.

There is also little evidence that Mrs May has paid much attention to the failure of several forces to protect vulnerable girls from the ethnically-motivated sexual predation seen in Rotherham and elsewhere. Nor, despite her supposed feminism, has Mrs May’s done much to ensure that girls from certain ethnic groups are protected from forced marriage and genital mutilation. But again, Mrs May has managed to evade criticism for this.

When considering her suitability for party leadership, it’s also worth remembering Mrs May’s notorious “lack of collegiality”.

David Laws’ memoirs paint a vivid picture of a secretive, rigid, controlling, even vengeful minister, so unpleasant to colleagues that a dread of meetings with her was something that cabinet members from both parties could bond over.

Unsurprisingly, Mrs May’s overwhelming concern with taking credit and deflecting blame made for a difficult working relationship with her department, just as her propensity for briefing the press against cabinet colleagues made her its most disliked member in two successive governments.

It is possible that Mrs May’s intimidating ruthlessness could make her the right person to negotiate with EU leaders. However, there’s little in her record to suggest she possesses either strong negotiation skills or the ability to win allies among other leaders, unlike Michael Gove, of whom David Laws wrote “it was possible to disagree with him but impossible to dislike him,”

It’s surely about time – and not too late – for conservatives to look behind Mrs May’s carefully-wrought image and consider if she really is the right person to lead the party and the country.

There’s a vast gulf between being effective in office, and being effective at promoting yourself; it’s not one that Theresa May has yet crossed.

Reproduced with kind permission of Jonathan Foreman

Observations on the Children and Social Work Bill

http://www.pic.cx/img65/hgtbeyyeaavhxvqrwhqq.jpg

The questions that should and haven't been answered are, who has asked for this Bill and why? What is its underlying purpose and why has the opportunity not been seized to address the many deficiencies that have been revealed in the British 'care' system? Is it in fact just another camouflaged method of further commercialising children as a financial asset for private business?

Particularly but not exclusively, the following problems have been identified time and time again:

1. Parents are imprisoned for breaching gagging orders;
2. Social Services are taking children at birth;
3. Judges hand abused children to the abusive father;
4. Children are NOT being listened to;
6. Mothers are not listened to;
7. Sexual Abuse should NOT be handled by SECRET family courts, as it is a CRIME.

See:  https://vickyhaigh.wordpress.com/

"A BILL TO Make provision about looked after children; to make other provision in relation to the welfare of children; and to make provision about the regulation of social workers.

1 Corporate parenting principles (1) A local authority in England must, in carrying out functions in relation to the children and young people mentioned in subsection (2), have regard to the need— (a) to act in the best interests, and promote the health and well-being, of those children and young people; (b) to encourage those children and young people to express their views, wishes and feelings; (c) to take into account the views, wishes and feelings of those children and young people; (d) to help those children and young people gain access to, and make the best use of, services provided by the local authority and its relevant partners; (e) to promote high aspirations, and seek to secure the best outcomes, for those children and young people; (f) for those children and young people to be safe, and for stability in their home lives, relationships and education or work; (g) to prepare those children and young people for adulthood and independent living"

"Section 15 Power to test different ways of working

(1) The purpose of this section is to enable a local authority in England to test different ways of working with a view to achieving better outcomes under

children’s social care legislation or achieving the same outcomes more

efficiently."

This allows a local authority to set up 'different ways of working'. What these might be is not described and therefore an unknown quantity. Whatever is proposed can last up to six years, which for a child is almost a lifetime.

The open nature of the proposal is obviously intended but it should be appreciated this can also lead to dangers, particularly in a climate of increasing privatisation where children are also seen as financial assets to be maximised for private gain, and where adoption is seen as a panacea of all familial ills, even against the wishes of the natural parents.

The Bill does little to alter existing regimes, which of course it could if the will was there. All the problems and deficiencies highlighted in the last decade or so is thereby ignored as is the basic problem of the failures of social services departments both in intervention and lack of it, in multiple cases.

Central to this is the pervading secrecy surrounding procedures even when those family members most closely involved wish to make circumstances known.

Although in Lord Nash's view the provisions of the Children and Social Work Bill are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and Section 1(1) embeds the primacy of the child's welfare, nevertheless in practise, these obligations must always be interpreted by Social Workers and Courts and therein often lies the problem as real cases have proved most recently in the Butler case. (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/ellie-butler-murder-how-the-full-tragic-story-unfolded/)

It has to be recognised, that natural and step-parents can be the chief cause of a child's mistreatment and so cannot in law be the final arbiter if the child has to be rescued. But by the same token, clearly neither Social Workers or Courts are infallible or even without their own dangers.

The only way to protect families from overweening bureaucratic power is by ensuring that parents have rights that must be respected; that the removal of a child from the natural family should only be the last resort supported by indisputable evidence; that the parents wishes should be properly represented; that the children themselves will be listened to and taken seriously; and that there is a presumption of transparency, unless the need for secrecy can be proved necessary. The term "future harm" so often used as an excuse for removal, should be prescribed in terms of what has actually occurred.

These protections are notable by their absence in the Bill. Are they enshrined in earlier legislation? If not perhaps they should be? Perhaps the "Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel" proposed by the Bill will be able to? Perhaps it might to start by considering the details of the Hampstead case? Section 13(1)(b) would certainly appear to allow this to happen: "serious harm to a child who is known or suspected by the local

authority to have been abused or neglected."

Or is the creation of the "Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel" just another camouflaged method of further privatising a public sector function?

It would appear the old term "children in care" has been replaced by "looked after children". Whether this is an advance or improvement is open to question. Presumably the former term was so discredited by the actuality, to require its replacement, but really is "looked after" the best we can do?

Children require stability, love, care and a sense of belonging to a family unit for their later physical and mental stability, even if imperfect. State and institutional settings seldom provide this and have often proved to be quite the reverse and therefore should be considered a fall-back, not a primary solution. Where is the emphasis in this Bill on supporting family units, not destroying them?

The Hampstead case proved definitively the weaknesses and dangers in the present arrangements. It is clear from this Bill (subject to the proviso above) that nothing from that experience has been learnt as far as the contents of this Bill are concerned. The present legislation dating back to 1989, may appear to have the best interests of the child at heart, but like a pike lurking in the reeds, the reality - as Hampstead proved - can be quite the opposite: a danger that is neither acknowledged or tackled by this Bill.

From: https://www.change.org/p/eu-parliament-abolish-adoptions-without-parental-consent/u/17146664?tk=TtwXqeFJu933BINPHxsDUKM4x0gbcsnxpB9ZHTLHE8s&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

STOP 'corporate parenting' - especially despite Brexit!

Association of McKenzie Friends

JUL 2, 2016 — Dear Supporters,

Nearly 6,000 of you online campaigners are likely also to be victims of the most heinous and hypocritical 'public service' one could imagine.

Despite our efforts, the Government has launched a Children and Social Work Bill that is SHOCKING, as it legitimises 'corporate parenting', as if biological parents don't count.

The text is onhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2016-2017/0001/17001.pdf

The stages of the Bill are onhttp://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/childrenandsocialwork.html

A list of 41 Peers who have contributed to the Debate so far is onhttps://punishmentwithoutcrime.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/16-07-02-peers-contributing-to-bill.pdf - with email addresses and phone numbers.

We sent them this 11-page report to STOP FORCED REMOVALS and asked for a meeting:
https://punishmentwithoutcrime.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/16-06-07-stop-forced-removals1.pdf

In Brussels we breathed HOPE thanks to Greek MEP Kostadinka Kuneva and her Cypriot colleague Takis Hadjigeorgiou who organised this seminar: Children Not for Sale - the Black Hole in our Culture. https://mcknews.com/2016/06/26/children-not-for-sale-the-black-hole-of-our-culture-eu-eu-coe-mojgovuk-brexit/

But we better get on our skates in the UK! "They" must NOT get away with destroying children and families under the label of 'corporate parenting' for future generations!!!

THANK YOU for your engagement, commitment, help and support!!!

Belinda and Sabine